View
219
Download
2
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8 March 2017
John Farrell, NREL John Holladay, PNNL
Introduction
Bioenergy Technologies Office
Acronym List AED Advanced Engine Development Team ACI Advanced Compression Ignition ANL Argonne National Laboratory AOP Annual Operating Plan ASSERT Analysis of Sustainability, Scale,
Economics, Risk and Trade Team BETO Bioenergy Technologies Office BOB Blendstock for oxygenated blending COLT Co-Optima Leadership Team CI Compression Ignition (combustion) EAB External Advisory Council EERE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Office FE Fossil Energy (content) FP Fuel Properties Team FOA Funding Opportunity Announcement GHG Greenhouse gas HOV Heat of Vaporization HPF High Performance Fuels Team INL Idaho National Laboratory IP Intellectual Property 2
LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LCA Lifecycle Analysis MT Market Transformation Team NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory POC Point of Contact PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory R&D Research and Development RON Research Octane Number SI Spark Ignition (combustion) SOT State of Technology SNL Sandia National Laboratory TEA Techno-economic analysis TK Tool Kit and Simulation Team TRL Technology Readiness Level VTO Vehicle Technologies Office
1 Project Overview
3
Goal and Outcomes
Goal: 30% per vehicle petroleum reduction through efficiency and displacement
Outcome: Market driver for biofuels 1. Science enabling targeted highly efficient
combustion modes for OEMs 2. Identification of bio-blendstocks that provide
the required critical fuel properties 3. Property-based specification for new fuels 4. Market viability, environmental sustainability,
and job assessment for fuel-engine system 5. Scenario analysis tool that combines data,
information, and assessments and weights based on stakeholder success criteria
6. Cars and trucks that operate with higher efficiency and lower emissions than possible today
4
Linking EERE Vehicle Technologies and Bioenergy Technologies Offices
Quad Chart
5
Project Start Date: 10/1/2015 Project End Date: 9/30/2018 Percent Complete: 42%
It-D Engines not optimized for Biofuels: Identifying fuel properties engines need and bio-blendstocks that provide those properties Ct-I Product Finishing Acceptability and Performance: Blending studies identifying non-linear behavior and producing real samples Im-H Awareness and acceptance of biofuels as alternative: Identifying bio-blendstocks that provide performance over petroleum (creating market pull) Im-C Codes, standards, and approval for use: Developing property-based fuel specification, identifying UL standards, etc. Mm-B: Inconsistent or Competing Policies: Mapping stakeholder needs to policies At-C Data Availability across the Supply Chain and At-A Comparable, Transparent, and Reproducible Analyses: Providing transparent info across stakeholder group (value chain)
Timeline
Budget
Barriers
Partners
FY16 Budget
FY17 Budget
FY18 Budget
BETO $14,000 $12,000 $12,000 VTO $12,000 $12,500 $12,500 Total $26,000 $24,500 $24,500
ANL, INL, LANL, LBNL, LLNL, NREL, ORNL, PNNL, SNL
Budget by Lab (k$)*
6
Lab FY16 Budget FY17 Budget FY18 Budget ANL $840 $900 $900 INL $1,300 $540 $540
LANL $700 $710 $710 LBNL $1,100 $860 $860
LLNL** $0 $0 $0 NREL $4,100 $4,200 $4,200 ORNL $900 $670 $670 PNNL $3,100 $2,400 $2,400 SNL $2,300 $1,600 $1,600 Total $14,000 $12,000 $12,000
* Only funding from BETO shown; ** VTO funding only
Budget by Team (k$)*
7
Teams FY16 Budget FY17 Budget FY18 Budget
Task A: High Performance Fuels $9,500 $7,100 $7,100
Task B: ASSERT $2,200 $2,200 $2,200 Task C: Market Transformation $1,400 $1,400 $1,400
Task D: Co-Optima Leadership Team $1,200 $1,100 $1,100
Total $14,000 $12,000 $12,000
* Only funding from BETO shown
Motivation
8 Engine R&D Fuel R&D
“Better fuels, better vehicles, sooner”
Today’s fuels do not allow engines to operate at their peak efficiency
New fuels, with targeted properties, can enable significantly higher efficiency and fuel economy
Intend to exploit unique properties available from biomass-derived molecules/mixtures to produce higher-value blendstocks
2 Approach (Management)
9
How We Are Organized
10
Board of Directors (Labs and DOE)
Approve direction and changes in focus
Steering Committee POC for each lab,
communications, IP
External Advisory Board
Advise on technology and
direction, provide recommendations,
bridge to stakeholders
Leadership Team (Labs and DOE)
Establish vision, define strategy,
integrate work plan, oversee execution, evaluate
performance, engage stake holders, and team build
Technical Team Leads Plan projects, evaluate team performance and gaps, report monthly highlights and
quarterly progress, communicate across teams to minimize silos
Operations Project management,
project integration, and strategic consulting
A formal “Roles and Responsibilities” document has been developed that is regularly updated and available on the Co-Optima team SharePoint site
Leadership
Leadership Team Leaders from VTO, BETO and labs DOE • Alicia Lindauer (BETO) • Kevin Stork (VTO) Labs • John Farrell, Lead (NREL) • John Holladay, BETO (PNNL) • Robert Wagner, VTO (ORNL)
11
Board of Directors Senior leadership (EERE and labs) DOE • Rueben Sarkar (EERE) • Jonathan Male (BETO) • Michael Berube (VTO) Labs (Assoc. Lab Directors) • Johney Green (NREL) • Moe Khaleel (ORNL) • Jud Virden (PNNL) • Marianne Walck (SNL)
External Advisory Board (EAB)
12
• EAB advises National Lab Leadership Team • Participants represent industry perspectives, not individual companies • Entire board meets twice per year; smaller groups meet on targeted issues
USCAR David Brooks American Petroleum Institute Bill Cannella Fuels Institute John Eichberger Truck & Engine Manufacturers Assn Roger Gault Advanced Biofuels Association Michael McAdams Flint Hills Resources Chris Pritchard
EPA Paul Machiele CA Air Resources Board James Guthrie UL Edgar Wolff-Klammer University Experts Ralph Cavalieri (WSU, emeritus) David Foster (U. Wisconsin, emeritus) Industry Expert John Wall (Cummins, retired)
Six Technical Teams
13
HPF
High Performance Fuels
Identify promising bio-derived blendstocks, develop selection criteria for fuel molecules, and identify viable production pathway
Teams are staffed with world-leading experts across nine national labs to provide the diverse expertise needed to tackle broad challenges
ASSERT
MT
Market Transformation
Analysis of Sustainability, Scale, Economics, Risk, and Trade
Identify and mitigate challenges of moving new fuels and engines to markets and engage with full range of stakeholders
Analyze energy, economic, and environmental benefits at U.S. economy-level and examine routes to feedstock production at scale through existing biomass markets
Six Technical Teams
14
Modeling and Simulation Toolkit
Extend the range, confidence, and applicability of engine experiments by leveraging high-fidelity simulation capabilities
TK
FP
AED
Advanced Engine Development
Fuel Properties
Quantify interactions between fuel properties, engine design, and operating strategies – enabling optimal design of efficient, emission-compliant engines
Identify critical properties and allowable ranges, systematically catalogue properties, and predict fuel-blending behavior
Teams are staffed with world-leading experts across nine national labs to provide the diverse expertise needed to tackle broad challenges
Team Leads and Roles
15
Matt McNenly (LLNL)
TK
FP
AED
Paul Miles (SNL)
Jim Szybist (ORNL)
HPF
Dan Gaspar (PNNL)
ASSERT
MT
Doug Longman (ANL)
Jennifer Dunn (ANL)
Roles and Responsibilities: Plan yearly AOPs, evaluate team performance, report monthly highlights and quarterly progress, communicate across teams, team-building
Project Plan and Program Management
A project plan is developed annually to organize the work of the teams across the individual labs’ annual operating plans (AOPs)
16
A full-time project manager is utilized to ensure task coordination and milestone completion
Hierarchy of Milestones
17
Communication and Coordination
18
Engagement and Stewardship
19
Go/No-Go Milestone (3/31/2017)
Milestone
1. Identify at least three bio-blendstocks that have passed Tier 2 screening as a Thrust I blend component
2. Demonstrate in an engine that a fuel blended with one of these components provides matching engine performance to a petroleum-derived fuel
20
Criteria
1. Demonstrate sufficient progress on Thrust I R&D to justify continued funding
2. Establish validity of the research approach
3. Determine if the project scope needs to be redefined
Decision Point (March 2017) The team will have: • Surveyed bio-blendstock options
available • Evaluated their physical and
chemical properties • Measured and/or predicted their
engine performance • Assessed their sustainability,
scalability, and affordability metrics
• Evaluated infrastructure / retail barriers to their use
• Shared this information broadly with stakeholders / scientific community
21
Purpose: Define relative Thrust I and Thrust II research priorities Timing coincides with end of Thrust I fuel discovery (candidate identification) and preliminary evaluation Key questions: What essential fuel R&D is needed in Thrust I and are there candidates ready for further scale-up R&D?
2 Approach (Technical)
22
Two Parallel R&D Thrusts
23
Thrust I: Spark Ignition (SI)
Thrust II: Advanced Compression Ignition (ACI) Kinetically controlled and compression-ignition combustion
Thrust I – Improve near-term efficiency of spark-ignition (SI) engines through identification of fuel properties and engine design parameters that maximize performance Thrust II – Identify fuel properties that enable advanced compression ignition (ACI) engines, providing a longer-term, higher-impact solutions with greater engine efficiency/emissions, petroleum reduction, and biofuels market pull
Low reactivity fuel High reactivity fuel Range of fuel properties
Notional Timeline
24
Governing Hypotheses
25
Central Engine Hypothesis There are engine architectures and strategies that provide higher thermodynamic efficiencies than are available from modern internal combustion engines; new fuels are required to maximize efficiency and operability across a wide speed / load range
Central Fuel Hypothesis If we identify target values for the critical fuel properties that maximize efficiency and emissions performance for a given engine architecture, then fuels that have properties with those values (regardless of chemical composition) will provide comparable performance
The governing hypotheses provide a framework to pursue engine and fuel discovery and development research simultaneously
Technical Approach
26
Key Elements of Property-Based Approach
27
Co-Optima is focused on identifying fuel
properties that optimize engine performance,
independent of composition,* allowing
the market to define the best means to blend
and provide these fuels
* We are not going to recommend specific “recipes” for commercial use
However, at the same time, we are pursuing a systematic study of bio-derived molecules and mixtures to identify bio-
blendstocks that provide preferential
properties Objective is to supplement our
extensive understanding of petroleum-derived blendstocks
Primary Technical Challenges
28
Identifying the key fuel properties that impact efficiency for advanced spark ignition and compression ignition combustion approaches
Identifying fuel formulations that provide key fuel properties and take advantage of unique properties of bio-blendstocks
Technical Challenge 1
Identify fuel properties
that maximize engine
performance
29
What fuels do engines really want?
Efficiency Merit Function Approach
30
• Research framed around “efficiency merit function” that estimates potential engine efficiency gains associated with key fuel properties
• Merit function establishes fuel property relationships in a systematic and comprehensive way that guides fuel R&D
• Approach facilitates knowledge transfer at unprecedented bandwidth and scale
• Each combustion approach will have unique merit function
VTO-funded work
Technical Challenge 2
Identifying blendstock options that provide key properties
31
What fuels should we make?
Leverage BETO’s Core Research
32
Which molecules / functional groups impart desired fuel properties for highly efficient engines?
More details in HPF talk
Fuel Screening
33
“Leaky funnel” concept
More details in HPF talk
Critical Success Factors
34
Identifying fuel and engine options that have near-term (~ 2025+) market viability (affordable, sustainable, scalable, and compatible)
Identifying deployment scenarios with maximum market pull for all stake-holders (a “win-win” for all)
Critical Success Factor 1
Assessing affordability, sustainability, scalability, and compatibility
35
What will work in the real world?
Assessing Viability
36
Candidates are being evaluated against 23 metrics to assess feasibility of technology ready for introduction in 2025–2030 More details provided in presentations by ASSERT and MT
Critical Success Factor 2
Identifying deployment
scenarios with maximum market pull for all stake-holder groups (a “win-win” for all)
37
Understanding needs and value propositions
for all major stakeholder groups (including
consumers)
How do we co-optimize?
Co-Optimizer – Approach and Tool
38
The Co-Optimizer computational tool will identify fuel formulations that meet commercial fuel specifications and maximize engine efficiency, subject to various constraints
3 Technical Accomplishments, Progress, and Results
39
Ten Major Accomplishments, Year 1
40
1. Developed Central Fuel Hypothesis [1]
2. Constructed Thrust I merit function [2]
3. Refined understanding of how fuel properties affect engine combustion [2]
4. Developed and populated fuel property database with 400+ bio-blendstocks and fuel mixtures [1]
5. Identified 40+ high-potential Thrust I blendstocks via tiered screening [1]
[1] Covered by HPF [2] VTO funded work (not covered in BETO Peer Review)
6. Developed co-optimizer approach and methodology [2]
7. Identified key economic, environmental, & market transformation metrics for candidate evaluation [3, 4]
8. Completed cost & environmental impact analyses (LCA, TEA) of 20 promising Thrust I candidates [3]
9. Completed benefits analysis (impact of Co-Optima) [3]
10. Convened EAB and maintained extensive external stakeholder engagement [4]
[3] Covered by ASSERT [4] Covered by MT
FY16 Year in Review
41
Highlights 24 accomplishments
Distributed to wide range of stakeholders
Complements more detailed BETO & VTO reports
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/67595.pdf
DOE Dashboard Milestones
42
4 Relevance
43
Co-Optima at a Glance Goal: 30% per vehicle petroleum reduction through efficiency and displacement
Outcome: Market driver for biofuels 1. Science enabling targeted highly efficient
combustion modes for OEMs 2. Identification of bio-blendstocks that provide
the required critical fuel properties 3. Property-based specification for new fuels 4. Market viability, environmental sustainability,
and job assessment for fuel-engine system 5. Scenario analysis tool that combines data,
information, and assessments and weights based on stakeholder success criteria
6. Cars and trucks that operate with higher efficiency and lower emissions than possible today
44
Integrate vehicle and biofuel research across the EERE Vehicle Technologies and Bioenergy Technologies Offices
Approach 1. Determine key fuel properties
that enable improved engine efficiency
2. Provide key science to enable high efficiency combustion modes
3. Capitalize on unique properties available from bio-blendstocks
4. Use stakeholder input to guide analysis
5. Focus on activities that can accelerate market penetration
45
Fills a Gap in BETO Strategy
BETO MYPP: Conversion R&D “develops commercially viable technologies for … energy-dense, fungible, finished liquid transportation fuels …”. The focus is on “key processing components that form technology building blocks” for “deconstruction and fractionation” and “synthesis and upgrading.” Co-Optima is identifying what fuel properties enable highly efficiency and clean engines. • Identifies critical fuel properties (Merit Function) • Identifies specific targets (structure-fuel property
relationship) • Provides retro-synthetic analysis that connect to BETO’s
pathways This compliments BETO’s focus on what “processing components” could be used to produce bio-blendstocks
Impact: Fills a critical gap for BETO, provides options for producers in a way that does not pick winners
Addresses what does an engine want and
what should we make
46
Informs BETO Portfolio Planning
BETO MYPP: Strategic Analysis program “provides context and justification for decisions at all levels by establishing the basis of quantitative metrics…and informing portfolio planning and management.”
Co-Optima contributes to context and justification for decisions based on science-driven models and tools working with broad stakeholder group • ASSERT model output (TEA, LCA,
Benefits Analysis) • Market transformation output • Co-Optimizer Tool (scenario modeling
balancing stakeholder drivers) • Provides targets for BETO core
programs and future FOAs
Impact: More robust BETO and VTO strategies
47
Will Lead to Reduced Emissions
BETO MYPP: “Co-development of fuels and engines has proved successful for controlling criteria pollutants … and reduced GHG emissions.”
Impact: Cleaner air, lower cost,* reduced greenhouse gas emissions
Co-Optima research is addressing: • Emission profiles (on a subset
of bio-blendstock candidates) • Diesel engine advancements –
fuel options that burn cleaner • Advanced compression ignition
combustion modes – fuel options that approach diesel efficiency with lower emissions
1000 1400 1800 2200 2600 3000 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Temperature [K] Local equ
ivalen
ce ra
@o Soot
NOX Fuel rich
Fuel lean SI LTC
* Cost of emission control on heavy duty truck can approach the cost of the engine
48
Higher Efficiency and Performance
From strategic plan “Co-optimization of fuels and engines offers the potential to significantly improve vehicle engine efficiency, maximize engine performance and carbon efficiency, … through accelerating the widespread deployment of improved fuels and engines.”
Co-Optima is developing science that provides new value propositions and supports market pull • Assessing how fuel properties extend the range of
efficiency across the speed-load drive cycle • Targeting bio-blendstocks that offer improvements
over petroleum-derived fuels
Co-Optima is addressing fuel deployment • Determining the blending behavior of the bio-
blendstocks within a petroleum matrix • Understanding impact on infrastructure (engines,
fuel transport and storage • Producing property-based fuel specifications
Win-Win Consumers Producers Suppliers regulators
Impact: market pull
5 Future Work
49
Look Ahead at Next 18 Months
50
Thrust I – Thrust II Rebalance and Budget
Budget is sufficient to • Complete Thrust I work • Initiate Thrust II diesel (mixing
controlled CI) • Initiate Thrust II multimode SI/ACI
(fuel properties definition strongly leverages Thrust I efforts)
51
Decision Point at 18 months • Determines relative effort toward
Thrust I and Thrust II for each team Options • Hand-off to BETO Core or FOA • Continue co-optimization Steps • Completed draft document of
team-by-team work scope following rebalance
• Present to External Advisory Board and Board of Directors
Spent, 42% Remai
ning, 58%
Completing Thrust I
52
Thrust I Activities Completion at 36 months
Develop blending models Assess fuel–component compatibility Determine combustion and emission profiles Validate merit function in engines with biofuels Expand co-optimizer tool
Action Understand non-linear blending behavior Expanded compatibility testing Understand emission clean-up requirements Improved Merit Function (at load) Balance stakeholder needs
Outcome Establishes fuel property-based specification Determines fit into today’s infrastructure
Clean burning and high efficiency Establishes approach
Create market pull
Relevance
Engine: Boosted stoichiometric spark ignition Fuel: high octane
53
Future Work: Key Milestones
FY17 FY18
HPF/FP/AED
ASSERT
MT
Project
Complete series of blend measurements
Retrosynthetic toolkit for all compounds
Determine missing pathway data
Determine infrastructure compatibility (2-5 fuels)
Determine blending behavior in more BOBs
Establish engine emission (2 fuels)
Establish pathways
Screen >200 diesel-like candidates
Measure blending behavior of 10
candidates
Thrust I Thrust II
Develop fuel property specification
Stakeholder engagement Scenario analysis
Thrust II TEA, LCA, benefits
Infrastructure costs & envir. impacts Business case
I & II
Decision Point-rebalance I & II
Form Thrust II multi-team project
Confirm ability to meet 30% target
Approach Accomplishments Relevance Future Work
Multi-discipline, multi-office effort Hypothesis-driven fuel property-based approach
Constrain combustion options and co-optimize renewable fuel blendstocks Two thrusts (I nearer term, SI; II longer-term, ACI) Output informs industry stakeholders
Developed engine efficiency merit function Provided a publicly accessible fuel property database (400 compounds) Identified promising Thrust I candidates Measured blending behavior of chemically diverse bio-blendstocks in two base fuels Completed initial life-cycle analysis of 20 bio-blendstock options
Provides technical basis for evaluating bio-blendstocks Identifies key bio-blendstocks that enable engines to operate cleanly and efficiently Identifies what fuels engines want and compliments BETO pathway approach Developing performance and pathway to enable technical analyses
Thrust I and Thrust II rebalance Establish performance improvements offered by promising Thrust I candidates Identify promising Thrust II options Improve pathway technical and market barrier analysis Develop merit function for two Thrust II options
Summary Goal: Develop fuel chemistry–engine performance relationships and scenario analyses that provide new fuel and combustion options for more efficient engines with lower harmful emissions, resulting in market pull for the transport sector.
54
Additional Slides
55
Publications
56
1. Big-Picture Issues Confronting Co-Optima. J. Farrell. Sustainable Transportation Summit, July 2016, Washington, D.C. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/66904.pdf
2. BioCompoundML: A General Biofuel Property Screening Tool for Biological Molecules using Random Forest Classifiers. L.S. Whitmore, R.W. Davis, R.L. McCormick, J.M. Gladden, B.A. Simmons, A. George, and C.M. Hudson. Energy & Fuels 30: 8410-8418, 2016 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b01952
3. Chemical Kinetics of Octane Sensitivity in a Spark-Ignition Engine. C.K. Westbrook, M. Mehl, W.J. Pitz, and M. Sjöberg. Combustion and Flame, 2016 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010218016301146
4. Combined Effects of Fuel and Dilution Type on Efficiency Gains of Lean Well-Mixed DISI Engine Operation with Enhanced Ignition and Intake Heating for Enabling Mixed-Mode Combustion. M. Sjöberg and W. Zeng. SAE Int. J. Engines 9:750-767, 2016 http://papers.sae.org/2016-01-0836/
5. Co-Optima Simulation Toolkit Team. M. McNenly, S. Som, D. Carrington, K. D. Edwards, R. Grout, J. Kodavasal, G. Lacaze, J. Oefelein, P. Pal, V. Ram, N. Van Dam, J. Waters, and R. Whitesides, Presentation, June 9, 2016 http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/07/f33/ft040_mcnenly_som_toolkit%20_simulation_2016.pdf
Publications
57
6. Co-Optima Stakeholder Listening Day Summary Report. Jointly sponsored by the EERE Vehicle Technologies Office and the EERE Bioenergy Technologies Office, June 16-17, 2016 http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/04/f30/co-optima_listening_day_summary_report_0.pdf
7. Co-Optimization of Fuels and Engines. J. Farrell. M-PACT 2016, March 2016, Indianapolis, Indiana http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/66567.pdf
8. Co-Optimization of Fuels and Engines. J. Farrell, SAE High Efficiency Internal Combustion Engine Symposium, April 11, 2016, Detroit, Michigan http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/66333.pdf
9. Co-Optimization of Fuels and Engines FOA: National Lab Project Overview Webinar Presentations. Hosted by the EERE Bioenergy Technologies Office, September 14, 2015: Introduction, J. Farrell, September 15, 2016 http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/09/f33/cooptima_webinar_1_introduction.pdf
10. IBID; Thrust I Technical Overview, J. Szybist, September 14, 2016 http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/09/f33/cooptima_webinar_2_thrust_i_0.pdf
11. IBID; Thrust II Engine Studies, P. Miles, September 14, 2016 http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/09/f33/cooptima_webinar_3_thrust_ii.pdf
12. IBID; Simulation Tools, M. McNenly, September 14, 2016 http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/09/f33/cooptima_webinar_4_simulation.pdf
Publications
58
13. IBID, Cross-Cutting Analysis, J.B. Dunn, September 14, 2016 http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/09/f33/cooptima_webinar_5_cross_cutting_analysis.pdf
14. IBID, Market Transformation: Identify and Mitigate Barriers to New Fuel Deployment for Thrust I and Thrust II, D. Longman, September 14, 2016 http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/09/f33/cooptima_webinar_6_market_transformation.pdf
15. IBID, The Year Ahead, J. Farrell, September 15, 2016 http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/09/f33/cooptima_webinar_7_year_ahead.pdf
16. Co-Optimization of Fuels & Engines for Tomorrow's Energy-Efficient Vehicles. Presentation, June 9, 2016 http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/07/f33/ft037_farrell_co-optima_overview_2016.pdf
17. Co-Optimization of Fuels & Engines for Tomorrow's Energy-Efficient Vehicles. Fact sheet, March 2016 http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/66146.pdf
18. Effects of Fuel Composition on EGR Dilution Tolerance in Spark Ignited Engines. J.P. Szybist and D. Splitter. SAE Int. J. Engines 9:819-831, 2016 http://papers.sae.org/2016-01-0715/
19. The Effect of Functional Groups in Bio-Derived Fuel Candidates. R.W. Jenkins, C.D. Moore, T.A. Semelsberger, D.J. Chuck, J.C. Gordon, and A.D. Sutton. ChemSusChem 9: 922, 2016 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cssc.201600552/full
Publications
59
20. Effects of Iso-octane/Ethanol Blend Ratios on the Observance of Negative Temperature Coefficient Behavior within the Ignition Quality Tester. G.E. Bogin, Jr., J. Luecke, M.A. Ratcliff, E. Osecky, and B.T. Zigler. Fuel 186:82-90, 2016 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236116307578
21. Elucidating Reactivity Regimes in Cyclopentane Oxidation: Jet Stirred Reactor Experiments, Computational Chemistry, and Kinetic Modeling. M.J. Al Rashidi, S. Thion C. Togbé, G. Dayma, M. Mehl, P. Dagaut, W.J. Pitz, J. Zádoe, and S.M. Sarathy. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, in press, 2016 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1540748916300360
22. Exploring the Relationship Between Octane Sensitivity and Heat-of-Vaporization. R. McCormick, M. Ratcliff, and B.T. Zigler. SAE Int. J. Fuel Lubr. 9:80-90, 2016 http://papers.sae.org/2016-01-0836/
23. Fuel Properties and Chemical Kinetics. R.L. McCormick, G. Fioroni, J. Szybist, T. Bays, P. Miles, M. McNenly, B. Pitz, J. Luecke, M. Ratcliff, B. Zigler, S. Goldsborough, Presentation, June 9, 2016 http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/07/f33/ft038_mccormick_szybist_fuel_properties_2016.pdf
Publications
60
24. Investigation of Iso-octane Ignition and Validation of a Multizone Modeling Method in an Ignition Quality Tester. E.M. Osecky, G.E. Bogin, Jr., S.M. Villano, M.A. Ratcliff, J. Luecke, B.T. Zigler, and A.M. Dean. Energy & Fuels, Article ASAP, 2016 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b01406
25. Knock Resistance and Fine Particle Emissions for Several Biomass-Derived Oxygenates in a Direct-Injection Spark-Ignition Engine. M.A. Ratcliff, J. Burton, P. Sindler, E. Christiansen, G.M. Chupka, L. Fouts, and R.L. McCormick. SAE Int. J. Fuel Lubr. 9:59-70, 2016 http://papers.sae.org/2016-01-0705/
26. Leaner Lifted-Flame Combustion Enabled by the Use of an Oxygenated Fuel in an Optical CI Engine. R. Gehmlich, C. Dumitrescu, Y. Wang, and C. Mueller. SAE Int. J. Engines 9: 1526-1543, 2016 http://papers.sae.org/2016-01-0730/
27. Conceptual Investigation of the Origins of Hydrocarbon Emissions from Mixing Controlled, Compression-Ignition Combustion, A.S. (Ed) Cheng and C.J. Mueller, Paper 2017-01-0724, 2017 SAE World Congress on October 28, 2016.
Publications
61
28. Effects of Fuel Laminar Flame Speed Compared to Engine Tumble Ratio, Ignition Energy, and Injection Strategy on Lean and EGR Dilute Spark Ignition Combustion, C. Kolodziej et al., SAE Technical Paper, April 2017 (Draft submitted, in review.).
29. Investigations of the Impact of Biodiesel Metal Contaminants on Emissions Control Devices, D.W. Brookshear, M.J. Lance, R.L. McCormick, and T.J. Toops, RSC publishing, book chapter in SPR volume 29, under review.
30. A Dual SCR Approach for NOx Abatement in Lean Gasoline Engine Exhaust, D. William Brookshear, Josh A. Pihl, and Todd J. Toops, abstract submitted for 2017 SAE World Congress.
31. Acetaldehyde as an ethanol derived bio-building block: an alternative to Guerbet chemistry, Cameron M. Moore, Orion Staples, Rhodri W. Jenkins, Ty J. Brooks, Troy A. Semelsberger, and Andrew D. Sutton, Green Chemistry, November 15, 2016, DOI: 10.1039/c6gc02507b http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2014/GC/C6GC02507B?page=search
Sampling of News Stories
62
1. Co-Optima: A Moon Shot to Reach Car Fuel-Economy Heights. L. Hall, Fuel Freedom Foundation, June, 2016 https://www.fuelfreedom.org/co-optima-a-moon-shot-to-reach-car-fuel-economy-heights/
2. Designing Tomorrow’s Engines: DOE’s Co-Optima. J. Stolark, Environmental and Energy Study Institute, June, 2016 http://www.eesi.org/articles/view/designing-tomorrows-fuels-for-tomorrows-engines-does-co-optima
3. Co-Optima: Re-Designing Engines, Fuels, Marketplace Strategies All at Once. J. Lane, Biofuels Digest, July, 2016 http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2016/07/24/cooptima-redesigning-engines-fuels-marketplace-strategies-all-at-once/
4. GM, Honda Execs Agree: Higher Octane Gas Needed to Optimize ICE Efficiency, SAE Organization, August 2016 http://articles.sae.org/14940/
Recommended